DOCSLIB.ORG

Security Detention - United Kingdom Practice Dominic Mcgoldrick

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Security Detention - United Kingdom Practice Dominic Mcgoldrick Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 40 | Issue 3 2009 Security Detention - United Kingdom Practice Dominic McGoldrick Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Dominic McGoldrick, Security Detention - United Kingdom Practice, 40 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 507 (2009) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol40/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. SECURITY DETENTION—UNITED KINGDOM PRACTICE Dominic McGoldrick* This article assesses the role of security detention within the context of a number of the United Kingdom’s anti-terrorism policies. It considers the U.K. provisions on indefinite detention and the judicial response to those policies. Close attention is given to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA 2005), and in particular the detailed regime of “control orders” it introduced. The different substantive and procedural bases for judicial challenges to control orders are illustrated by reference to the leading judi- cial decisions. The challenges have principally been based on the human rights provisions in the European convention on human rights. These have been given a degree of domestic incorporation by the Human Rights Act (1998). Consideration is given to the future use of control orders and how an “exit strategy" from them could be devised. Finally, the article analyses the place of security detention within the context of other policy options that form part of an Anti-Terrorism Strategy. It is submitted that none of them is cost-free in human rights terms. I. INTRODUCTION:THE U.K. AND TERRORISM The U.K. has assumed a leadership role on the War on Terrorism, serving as the principal ally of the United States in the War on Terrorism generally, and the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq in particular.1 The U.K.’s Security Service (MI5) monitors the activities of 200 terrorist networks, involving some 2,000 suspects.2 Its domestic anti-terrorism law is wide- ranging, highly sophisticated, and reflects a variety of anti-terrorist poli- cies.3 Under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), all of that legislation can * Professor of Public International Law, Liverpool Law School, United Kingdom. 1 See Tony Blair, U.K. Prime Minister, Speech on the Threat of Global Terrorism (Mar. 5, 2004), available at http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page5461.asp; Tony Blair, U.K. Prime Minister, Speech on the Clash of Civilisations (Mar. 21, 2006), available at http://www.pm. gov.uk/output/Page9224.asp. 2 See Jonathan Evans, MI5 Director General, Speech on Intelligence, Counter-Terrorism and Trust (Nov. 5, 2007), available at http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page562.html. 3 Some aspects of domestic law have been required by legal obligations under European and international law. See Helen Duffy, THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ AND THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2005); Frank Gregory, The EU’s Response to 9/11: A Case Study of Institutional Roles and Policy Processes with Special Reference to Issues of Accountability and Human Rights, 17 TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE 105 (2005). 507 508 CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L. [Vol. 40:507 now be tested for its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The HRA represents an ingenious construction that impacts on legislative, executive and judicial powers, and involves all institutional actors in rights review.4 Under HRA Section 3, all legislation must “so far as it is possible to do so” be read and given effect in a way that is compati- ble with the ECHR.5 It if is not possible, the higher courts can issue a “dec- laration of incompatibility” under Section 4 of the HRA.6 In all cases so far, these have been followed by remedial legislation.7 Finally, under Section 6 of the HRA, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with any Convention rights.8 In any historical circumstances the HRA would have represented a significant challenge to the U.K. consti- tutional system. The post 9/11 context has subjected the HRA to the most searching forensic testing conceivable.9 This article assesses the role of security detention within the context of a number of U.K. anti-terrorism policies. Part II considers the U.K. pro- visions on indefinite detention and the judicial response to those policies. Part III examines the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA 2005), and in particular the detailed regime of “control orders” it introduced. Parts IV–VI considers the different bases for judicial challenges to control orders. Part VII considers the future use of control orders. Finally, Part VIII puts securi- ty detention within the context of other policy options that form part of an Anti-Terrorism Strategy. II. CONTROLLING THE TERROR THREAT: THE ATSCA PART 4REGIME FOR INDEFINITE DETENTION Responding to the attacks of 9/11, the U.K Parliament passed the Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act of 2001 (ATCSA), which mod- ified the Terrorism Act of 2000.10 The most controversial new measures in the ATCSA were those in Part 4, entitled “Immigration and Asylum,” which permit indefinite detention for foreign nationals suspected of being interna- tional terrorists.11 These provisions required the U.K. to derogate from Ar- 4 See David Feldman, The Human Rights Act 1998 and Constitutional Processes, 19 LEGAL STUD. 165, 167–169 (1999). 5 Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42, § 3(1) (Eng.). 6 Id. § 4(2). 7 See Wainwright v. United Kingdom, App. No. 12350/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2006), http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2006/807.html. 8 Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42, § 6(1) (Eng.). 9 See CONOR GEARTY,CAN HUMAN RIGHTS SURVIVE? (2006). 10 See Anti-terrorism, Crime, and Security Act, 2001, c. 24 (Eng.) [hereinafter ATCSA]; CLIVE WALKER,BLACKSTONE’S GUIDE TO THE ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION 4 (2002). 11 See ATCSA pt. 4, § 29. See also AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL,UNITED KINGDOM HUMAN RIGHTS:ABROKEN PROMISE, 14 (Feb. 23, 2006), 2009] U.K. PRACTICE 509 ticle 5 of the ECHR and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).12 Section 21 of ATCSA provided that the Home Secretary could certify an individual as a “suspected international terrorist” if the Secretary reasonably believed that that person’s presence in the U.K. was a threat to national security and that the Secretary suspected that the person was a terrorist.13 Once certified, a range of immigration decisions (which can only be taken against non-nationals), including an order for re- moval, could be taken by the appropriate authorities even though the person could not be removed for legal or practical reasons.14 Interestingly, the prin- cipal legal reason would normally be that it was contrary to the ECHR to remove an individual who presented substantial evidence that he would face a real risk of treatment incompatible with the ECHR.15 In the anti-terrorist context, this would normally be ill-treatment or the death penalty, but in principle it could extend to other rights.16 Of the seventeen persons that were detained under the Part 4 re- gime, only one person won an appeal against certification.17 According to Amnesty International, “most of the ATCSA detainees were held in the High Security Unit (USU) in Belmarsh” prison.18 Amnesty International concluded that those held at Belmarsh suffered conditions that amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and that the conditions had led to a serious deterioration of their physical and mental health.19 There also was evidence that the conditions of detention were causing psychiatric prob- lems.20 Legally, the detainees could have left at any time (hence it was re- ferred to as a “three wall prison”) if they were willing to return to a place where they would face a real risk of serious ill-treatment.21 Although two individuals did just this, it was not be realistic to expect detainees make this available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR45/004/2006 [hereinafter AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL]. 12 See ATCSA pt. 4, § 30. See also AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, supra note 11, at 14–15. 13 See ATCSA, c. 24, pt. 4, § 21 (Eng.). 14 See id. pt. 4, § 22. 15 It could also have been that they satisfied the criteria for being granted asylum. 16 See Regina v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2004] UKHL 27 (appeal taken from Eng.); see also Regina v. Special Adjudicator, [2004] UKHL 26 (appeal taken from Eng.); EM (Lebanon) v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2008] UKHL 64 (appeal taken from Eng.) (deportation would violate Article 8 ECHR). 17 See Who are the Terror Detainees?, BBC NEWS, Mar. 11, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2 /hi/uk_news/4101751.stm (detailing the detainees’ national origins and the allegations with which they are faced). 18 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, supra note 11, at 21 19 Id. at 21–23. 20 Id. 21 See id. at 14. 510 CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L. [Vol. 40:507 choice. By the time of the decision of the House of Lords in the Belmarsh Detainees Case, those detained had already been held for three and a half years and faced the prospect of indefinite detention.22 The detention system in ATCSA was challenged in A (FC) and Others v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FAQ: Brexit and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
    FAQ: Brexit and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Part One: What is the Charter? June 2018 Contents Q: What is the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? A: At the Cologne European Council in June 1999, the European Council adopted a decision on the drawing up of a Charter of The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. That decision stated: Fundamental Rights brings together in a single “There appears to be a need, at the present stage of the Union’s document the fundamental development, to establish a Charter of fundamental rights in rights protected in the order to make their overriding importance and relevance more EU. It was proclaimed in visible to the Union’s citizens”. 2000 and became legally binding in 2009. Although The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) brings together in a there is overlap between single document the fundamental rights protected in the EU. The Charter the EU Charter and the sets out rights and freedoms under six titles: Dignity, Freedoms, Equality, European Convention on Solidarity, Citizens’ Rights, and Justice. The accompanying Explanatory Human Rights / the UK Notes are “a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the Human Rights Act, there are important procedural provisions of the Charter” and they set out the sources of the provisions and substantive differences. in the Charter. However, legal experts have commented that, “The Charter is often described as a strand-tying document … However, the This FAQ discusses: characterisation of the Charter thus, as a tidying or strand-tying exercise only, tends to underplay its importance” (C Gallagher, A Patrick and K • The background to O’Byrne 2018 at para 2.12).
    [Show full text]
  • Law Research Paper Series Paper #002 2019
    Law Research Paper Series Paper #002 2019 Terrorism and Transnational Law: Rules of Law Under Conditions of Globalisation Author: Dr Cian C. Murphy, Bristol Law School This paper is drawn from Zumbansen, ed, Oxford Handbook of Trasnational Law (forthcoming 2019). bristol.ac.uk/law/research/legal-research -papers ISSN 2515-897X The Bristol Law Research Paper Series publishes a broad range of legal scholarship in all subject areas from members of the University of Bristol Law School. All papers are published electronically, available for free, for download as pdf files. Copyright remains with the author(s). For any queries about the Series, please contact [email protected]. I. INTRODUCTION Since its first invocation, as a criticism of the French Revolution, the term ‘terrorism’ has been used to refer to threats to legal and political order. The Anglo-Irish political philosopher, Edmund Burke, said the French revolutionaries were ‘Hell-hounds called Terrorists’.1 The revolutionaries themselves wore the term with honour. Robespierre declared that terror is ‘nothing else than swift, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue’.2 These two early uses of the term illustrate its role as a site of conflict about the legitimacy of political violence both by and against state order. And, at least until the end of the twentieth century, political violence – even terrorism – was seen as sometimes capable of justification. Today it is the pejorative meaning that has won out. The ‘-ist suggests a philosophy – but one which comes down to spilling guts and hacking off heads’ and so to be a terrorist is ‘to be accused of being cleaned out of ideas’.3 This, to an extent, is oxymoronic.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty Years of the Human Rights Act: Extracts from the Evidence Contents
    Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP Twenty years of the Human Rights Act: Extracts from the evidence Contents 1 ECtHR Judgments against the UK: the effects of the HRA 2 2 Relationship of UK Courts and ECtHR 4 3 Using the ECHR in the UK courts 5 4 Judgments on rights 7 5 Wider policy changes brought about through individual legal cases 8 6 The Human Rights Act and Parliament 9 7 The Human Rights Act and Legislation 11 Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation 12 The process when UK courts consider legislation is not compliant with the Convention 12 8 Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 14 Change secured without using court proceedings 15 Training in Human Rights 16 9 Further issues raised in evidence 18 Incorporation of other human rights treaties? 18 The definition of public authority 18 Access to justice 19 Freedom of Religion and Belief 20 Wider Understanding of Rights 21 2 Twenty years of the Human Rights Act: Extracts from the evidence 1 ECtHR Judgments against the UK: the effects of the HRA Box 1: Lord Irvine of Lairg, House of Lords Second Reading Debate, 3 Nov 1997 “Our legal system has been unable to protect people in the 50 cases in which the European Court has found a violation of the convention by the United Kingdom. That is more than any other country except Italy. The trend has been upwards. Over half the violations have been found since 1990.”1 Source: HL Deb, 3 Nov 1997, col 1228 Box 2: Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law […] In 2017 only 0.2%, 2 out of all 1,068 judgments given by the Strasbourg Court found a violation by the UK, and in 2016 this figure was 0.7%, 7 out of all 993 judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Act 1998
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Human Rights Act 1998. (See end of Document for details) Human Rights Act 1998 1998 CHAPTER 42 An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes. [9th November 1998] Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Extent Information E1 For the extent of this Act outside the U.K., see s. 22(6)(7) Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act: certain functions of the Secretary of State transferred to the Lord Chancellor (26.11.2001) by S.I. 2001/3500, arts. 3, 4, Sch. 1 para. 5 C2 Act (except ss. 5, 10, 18, 19 and Sch. 4): functions of the Lord Chancellor transferred to the Secretary of State, and all property, rights and liabilities to which the Lord Chancellor is entitled or subject to in connection with any such function transferred to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (19.8.2003) by S.I. 2003/1887, art. 4, Sch. 1 C3 Act modified (30.1.2020) by Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 (c. 2), ss. 2(8), 9(3) C4 Act modified (31.12.2020) by European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Policing Terrorism
    Policing Terrorism A Review of the Evidence Darren Thiel Policing Terrorism A Review of the Evidence Darren Thiel Policing Terrorism A Review of the Evidence Darren Thiel © 2009: The Police Foundation All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of The Police Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Police Foundation. Enquires concerning reproduction should be sent to The Police Foundation at the address below. ISBN: 0 947692 49 5 The Police Foundation First Floor Park Place 12 Lawn Lane London SW8 1UD Tel: 020 7582 3744 www.police-foundation.org.uk Acknowledgements This Review is indebted to the Barrow Cadbury Trust which provided the grant enabling the work to be conducted. The author also wishes to thank the academics, researchers, critics, police officers, security service officials, and civil servants who helped formulate the initial direction and content of this Review, and the staff at the Police Foundation for their help and support throughout. Thanks also to Tahir Abbas, David Bayley, Robert Beckley, Craig Denholm, Martin Innes and Bob Lambert for their insightful, constructive and supportive comments on various drafts of the Review. Any mistakes or inaccuracies are, of course, the author’s own. Darren Thiel, February 2009 Contents PAGE Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • A Surveillance Society?
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee A Surveillance Society? Fifth Report of Session 2007–08 Volume II Oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 20 May 2008 HC 58-II [Incorporating HC 508-i–iv, Session 2006–07] Published on 8 June 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £24.50 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chairman) Tom Brake MP (Liberal Democrat, Charshalton and Wallington) Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Regent’s Park and Kensington North) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) David TC Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) Mrs Janet Dean MP (Labour, Burton) Patrick Mercer MP (Conservative, Newark) Margaret Moran MP (Labour, Luton South) Gwyn Prosser MP (Labour, Dover) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Martin Salter MP (Labour, Reading West) Mr Gary Streeter MP (Conservative, South West Devon) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the inquiry: Rt Hon John Denham MP (Labour, Southampton Itchen) Mr Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton) Mr Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Let's Not Go Back to 70S Primary Education Wikio
    This site uses cookies to help deliver services. By using this site, you agree to the use of cookies. Learn more Got it Conor's Commentary A blog about politics, education, Ireland, culture and travel. I am Conor Ryan, Dublin-born former adviser to Tony Blair and David Blunkett on education. Views expressed on this blog are written in a personal capacity. Friday, 20 February 2009 SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE UPDATES Let's not go back to 70s primary education Wikio Despite the Today programme's insistence on the term, "independent" is certainly not an apt Contact me description of today's report from the self-styled 'largest' review of primary education in 40 years. It You can email me here. is another deeply ideological strike against standards and effective teaching of the 3Rs in our primary schools. Many of its contributors oppose the very idea of school 'standards' and have an ideological opposition to external testing. They have been permanent critics of the changes of recent decades. And it is only in that light that the review's conclusions can be understood. Of course, there is no conflict between teaching literacy and numeracy, and the other subjects within the primary curriculum. And the best schools do indeed show how doing them all well provides a good and rounded education. Presenting this as the point of difference is a diversionary Aunt Sally. However, there is a very real conflict between recognising the need to single literacy and numeracy out for extra time over the other subjects as with the dedicated literacy and numeracy lessons, and making them just another aspect of primary schooling that pupils may or may not pick up along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Human Rights in the United Kingdom
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 28, Issue 2 2004 Article 7 The Development of Human Rights in the United Kingdom Lord Gordon Slynn∗ ∗ Copyright c 2004 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Development of Human Rights in the United Kingdom Lord Gordon Slynn Abstract There are two myths about the United Kingdom. The first is that we do not have a constitution and did not have any human rights law until very recently. The second myth, very much tied to the first, is that human rights is a new topic. I find that most law students seem to think that they alone have thought about fundamental human rights and that the rest of the world knows nothing about it. As with most myths, however, none of these is absolutely true. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM* Lord Gordon Slynn** There are two myths about the United Kingdom. The first is that we do not have a constitution and did not have any human rights law until very recently. The second myth, very much tied to the first, is that human rights is a new topic.1 I find that most law students seem to think that they alone have thought about fundamental human rights and that the rest of the world knows nothing about it. As with most myths, however, none of these is absolutely true. Let us address the second myth first. The origin of human rights law extends back to the beginning of Western civilization, to the Greeks and the Romans.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Terrorism Pre-Crime Measures and International Human Rights Law
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2020 The Price of Prevention: Anti-Terrorism Pre-Crime Measures and International Human Rights Law, Arturo J. Carrillo George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arturo J. Carrillo, The Price of Prevention: Anti-Terrorism Pre-Crime Measures and International Human Rights Law, 60 Va. J. Int’l L. 571 (2020) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE The Price of Prevention: Anti-Terrorism Pre-Crime Measures and International Human Rights Law ARTURO J. CARRILLO* How far can law go to prevent violent acts of terrorism from happening? This Article examines the response by a number of Western democratic States to that question. These States have enacted special legal mechanisms that can be called ‘anti-terrorist pre-crime measures.’ Anti-terrorist pre-crime measures, or ATPCMs for short, are conditions or restrictions imposed on a person by law enforcement authorities as the outcome of a legal process set up to identify and neutralize potential sources of terrorist activity before it occurs. The issue is whether the ATCPMs regimes in existence today comply with the corresponding States’ international obligations under human rights law because, by virtue of their preventative mission, these regimes operate outside, or on the fringes of, the ordinary criminal justice systems in the democratic societies that deploy them.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministerial Reshuffle – 5 June 2009 8 June 2009
    Ministerial Reshuffle – 5 June 2009 8 June 2009 This note provides details of the Cabinet and Ministerial reshuffle carried out by the Prime Minister on 5 June following the resignation of a number of Cabinet members and other Ministers over the previous few days. In the new Cabinet, John Denham succeeds Hazel Blears as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and John Healey becomes Housing Minister – attending Cabinet - following Margaret Beckett’s departure. Other key Cabinet positions with responsibility for issues affecting housing remain largely unchanged. Alistair Darling stays as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Mandelson at Business with increased responsibilities, while Ed Miliband continues at the Department for Energy and Climate Change and Hilary Benn at Defra. Yvette Cooper has, however, moved to become the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with Liam Byrne becoming Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills has been merged with BERR to create a new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills under Lord Mandelson. As an existing CLG Minister, John Healey will be familiar with a number of the issues affecting the industry. He has been involved with last year’s Planning Act, including discussions on the Community Infrastructure Levy, and changes to future arrangements for the adoption of Regional Spatial Strategies. HBF will be seeking an early meeting with the new Housing Minister. A full list of the new Cabinet and other changes is set out below. There may yet be further changes in junior ministerial positions and we will let you know of any that bear on matters of interest to the industry.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline of Dualism: the Relationship Between International Human Rights Treaties and the United Kingdom's Domestic Counter-Terror Laws
    The Decline of Dualism: The Relationship Between International Human Rights Treaties and the United Kingdom's Domestic Counter-terror Laws by Craig William Alec Webber Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Laws at the University of South Africa Promoter: Professor Neville Botha November 2012 DECLARATION I declare that ‘The Decline of Dualism: The Relationship Between International Human Rights Treaties and the United Kingdom's Domestic Counter-terror Laws’ is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my promoter, Professor Neville Botha for his exceptionally instructive and meticulous supervision. I have learned a great deal under his careful direction. I would also like to thank my parents and family and especially my Mother for her support, both practical and financial. I also wish to acknowledge Paul Tosio, who was regularly called upon to apply his considerable intellect to matters which fall well outside his many areas of interest. I dedicate this thesis in memory of my grandfather William Currin, who so enjoyed attending his grandchildren’s graduation ceremonies. Craig Webber Cape Town: November 2012 iii SUMMARY In the first half of the 20th Century, the United Kingdom’s counter-terror laws were couched extremely broadly. Consequently, they bestowed upon the executive extraordinarily wide powers with which it could address perceived threats of terrorism. In that period of time, the internal affairs of any state were considered sacrosanct and beyond the reach of international law.
    [Show full text]
  • Hizb Ut-Tahrir Ideology and Strategy
    HIZB UT-TAHRIR IDEOLOGY AND STRATEGY “The fierce struggle… between the Muslims and the Kuffar, has been intense ever since the dawn of Islam... It will continue in this way – a bloody struggle alongside the intellectual struggle – until the Hour comes and Allah inherits the Earth...” Hizb ut-Tahrir The Centre for Social Cohesion Houriya Ahmed & Hannah Stuart HIZB UT-TAHRIR IDEOLOGY AND STRATEGY “The fierce struggle… between the Muslims and the Kuffar, has been intense ever since the dawn of Islam... It will continue in this way – a bloody struggle alongside the intellectual struggle – until the Hour comes and Allah inherits the Earth...” Hizb ut-Tahrir The Centre for Social Cohesion Houriya Ahmed & Hannah Stuart Hizb ut-Tahrir Ideology and Strategy Houriya Ahmed and Hannah Stuart 2009 The Centre for Social Cohesion Clutha House, 10 Storey’s Gate London SW1P 3AY Tel: +44 (0)20 7222 8909 Fax: +44 (0)5 601527476 Email: [email protected] www.socialcohesion.co.uk The Centre for Social Cohesion Limited by guarantee Registered in England and Wales: No. 06609071 © The Centre for Social Cohesion, November 2009 All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting human rights for the benefit of the public. The views expressed are those of the author, not of the Institute. Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology and Strategy By Houriya Ahmed and Hannah Stuart ISBN 978-0-9560013-4-4 All rights reserved The map on the front cover depicts Hizb ut-Tahrir’s vision for its Caliphate in ‘Islamic Lands’ ABOUT THE AUTHORS Houriya Ahmed is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC).
    [Show full text]